Re: Complex filters -> Bad row estimates -> bad query plan - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Mathieu Fenniak
Subject Re: Complex filters -> Bad row estimates -> bad query plan
Date
Msg-id CAHoiPjw4bSVL55NR9vc2amkpV2qa5O4C-n1jAOz8vJNvS6SGEg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Complex filters -> Bad row estimates -> bad query plan  (Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com>)
Responses Re: Complex filters -> Bad row estimates -> bad query plan
List pgsql-general
Thanks Michael.

I'll give some join alternatives a shot first... but, that's cool.

What about OFFSET 0 makes this approach work?  I'm thinking the OFFSET 0 create an optimization barrier that prevents the planner from collapsing that sub-query into the top query, and enforces ordering in the query?

I appreciate your thoughts, thank-you very much for the feedback.

Mathieu


On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:08 PM Michael Lewis <mlewis@entrata.com> wrote:
If those conditions that are throwing off the stats are expected to be minimally impactful/filtering few rows, then you can use the one tried-and-true optimizer hint (aside from materialized CTEs, stylized indexes, etc) --- OFFSET 0 at the end of a sub-query.

SELECT * FROM ( [your existing query without the sub-selects that are complicated and produce bad estimates] OFFSET 0 ) WHERE [your other conditions that don't produce good estimates]

If there is correlation between field1 and field2, you might also look at CREATE STATISTICS assuming you are on PG 10 or 11.

Before I do any of that, I would try LEFT JOIN for Table3 and Table4 then use the where conditon  "AND 2 = COALESCE( Table3.Status, Table4.Status" and see if the optimizer likes that option better.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: stan
Date:
Subject: Importing from CSV, auto creating table?
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Importing from CSV, auto creating table?